So other blogs across the feminist/progressive blogosphere have covered the “21 May is the End of Days” story in recent weeks. For the last two hundred years (at least!) religious groups in America have been predicting the second coming down to the day and sometimes even the hour. So far, we haven’t seen it happen. May this time it will, who knows. (And who’s to say what “judgment day” will really entail, anyway — maybe there will be bunnies and lemon drops for all!)

But on Tuesday, the Boston-based blog Bostinnovation reported that the specific group in question this time around, had sponsored advertisements on MBTA buses (for those of you who aren’t Boston locals, the MBTA is the public transportation authority in our area). And some local activists petitioned the MBTA to remove the advertisements because they were “extremely offensive.” Why? Because the group sponsoring the ads is (not surprisingly) anti-gay, and believes that the second coming is being precipitated, at least in part, by us queer folks having us some sexytimes.

Yesterday around 7pm, BostonTweet posted this tweet with the accompanying image (left). The image depicts an ad from FamilyRadio.com on a MBTA bus. Although the messaging is pretty dark, it is not offensive.

Within the audio file, the speaker reads an article that contains the following: “Gay pride and same-sex marriage success is a sign from God that the end is very near”. The speaker continues in this vein for the duration of the presentation.

Now, while I’m generally pro-consumer activism, I also have very mixed feelings about an ad campaign like this being pulled because a group of vocal dissenters believe the group sponsoring the ad has beliefs the dissenters don’t like.

At this point, it’s unclear whether the ads were pulled as a response to the complaints, or whether the ad campaign simply ended. But let’s assume for the sake of argument the MBTA did to the complaints and removed the ad. While I’m not 100% against the action, I have some pretty severe reservations about the wisdom of curtailing speech in this way.

Fundamentally, my discomfort about the action — applauded on Bostinnovation as a successful activist moment — lies in the fact that as much as we might disagree, dislike, ore even be “offended” by the message of the ads on the bus, I don’t believe we (as consumers or citizens) have a right to silence them. Heck, as a regular user of public transportation, I can think of a half-dozen ad campaigns in the past year I’ve been “offended” by. There are the crisis pregnancy center ads and the fertility clinic ads, both of which make claims about their services that I believe are often fraudulent and exploitative. Yet these ads have run their course, and if I expect to be able to read Planned Parenthood ads alongside them, I really can’t go complaining to the MBTA that they took the ad revenue. Because if I challenge pro-life organizations’ right to advertise on public transit, you can be absolutely sure they’re challenge the right of pro-choice organizations to advertise their services too.

And then where will we be? Pregnant women might not get shaming messages about their unplanned pregnancies, but they’re also not going to get real information about Planned Parenthood’s prenatal services either … how is that helpful?

And where would the censorship stop … could I petition the MBTA complaining that that the sexually-suggestive vodka ads are offensive? The ads for diamonds support civil wars in Africa? I mean, these things are true from my point of view (well, mostly I think the vodka ads are silly). But that doesn’t mean I have the right not to view them. I can write a blog post deconstructing them. I can boycott the services being offered. (I’m certainly not interested in quitting the sexytimes to forestall judgment day, so there’s that ad campaign successfully undermined!) But I really don’t think it’s a good form of activism to stop the opposing group from speaking their mind.

Am I being too lenient here? Should groups with bigoted beliefs not be allowed to buy ad space in public places? Is there a difference between buying ad space on a billboard and purchasing ad space on publiclly-funded transit vehicles? Would it be ethical to write an ad policy for such publically-funded systems that limited certain types of advocacy groups? Help me think this one through, Harpies!

20 Responses to “Error of Judgment?: MBTA meets Judgment Day Ad”

If you read Slog, you’ll know that Seattle had a similar situation with their buses and a pro-Palestinian group that wanted to buy ad space. The ads were posted, then removed,as I recall, but that could be wrong.

One question is whether public transportation can be considered part of the public square. On one hand, you could argue that if the display medium is publicly funded, message-based restrictions shouldn’t apply. On the other hand, you could argue that the primary purpose of a public square is to provide a place for community members to meet and exchange views, whereas the primary purpose of a transportation system is to provide transportation. So to the extent that controversial messages harm that purpose, they could be refused. (Isn’t it great to get guidance from a law school grad?)

Ads that we find offensive, whether because of their messages or because of their design, are a reflection of the world we live in. I’d rather be offended (which might stir me to action) than have the government make judgments about what are permissible messages in the public arena. However, ads like those from CPCs that are flat out lies should not be permitted, because they contain content that is deliberately false.

Anna, I would like to suggest respectfully that you change your use of the term “pro-life” to “anti-choice”. We all know that antis are not, in fact, pro the life of anyone or anything except fetuses, and using their terminology gives them a significant rhetorical victory.

Public organizations should not earn money by providing a forum for hate speech that targets specific groups. Ads for potentially fraudulent goods and services—pregnancy crisis centers, psychics, weight loss pills and other snake oils, ambulance chasing lawyers promising huge settlements, to name a few I see on a regular basis on the NYC subways—is very different from taking money to provide a forum for hate speech, IMO.

Also, I see those end-of-the-world assholes frequently at the Atlantic Ave. station in Brooklyn. They’re going to feel pretty fucking stupid on May 22.

@mischiefmanager, I take your point about language but I struggle with this one. I firmly stand behind the right of folks to self-identify and make decisions about what to call themselves (i.e. I’m not going to question a trans* person or a lesbian about their identities just because I think their behavior doesn’t line up with my own understanding of that identity). So that makes me uncomfortable about refusing to use the self-identifying terms of people with whom I disagree. At the same time, I recognize what you’re saying about rhetorical advantage and at some point there’s probably a place to say “so-and-so is just outright lying” about their identity vis a vis their actions … I’m leaving the post as-is for now. But I’ll think about how I might phrase things differently in the future.

@BeckySharper The question about “hate speech” here, though, is that the ads themselves aren’t specifically hateful toward anyone — they’re just a general announcement about judgment day. And even the suggestion that homosexual behavior is a sign that “the end is near” isn’t particularly hateful. Fearful maybe?

Back where I grew up, there were plenty of people who believed that homosexuality was sinful and something to repent … but that didn’t always lead to hateful words or actions against people who were queer, or supported queer folks. Tension, anger, sadness, frustration, righteousness … yes. But not necessarily hate toward individuals.

I do believe there is a type of direct call to action that can be classified as “hate speech” and should be monitored and possibly curtailed. But I’m not sure that this specific example constitutes that sort of speech. How do we draw the line between strongly held beliefs that a behavior is wrong and “hate speech”?

I dunno…saying gay pride is a sign of the end of the world sounds like hate speech to me. It’s factually untrue, prejudicial, disparages and targets a specific group.

Just because some people truly believe that “God Hates Fags” doesn’t mean it’s not hate speech. And really, this is just a slightly more polite way of phrasing that exact sentiment.

I’ve heard on many, many occasions that me and my fellow Jews are bringing about the end of the world through our evil Jewish ways, and I call hate speech every time. I don’t care if they believe it to the very core of their being—it’s bigoted bullshit and deserves to be condemned.

“When Arney tweeted at Rich Davey, the General Manager of the MBTA, questioning whether FamilyRadio had been properly vetted as a potential advertiser, Davey was quick to respond and remove the FamilyRadio.com’s ad campaign from the MBTA.”

Maybe it wasn’t censorship, maybe this guy Arney asked the right question. It could be that the circumstances around accepting the ads did not follow protocol and that’s why they were pulled.

I for one am tired of public spaces and objects being cluttered with advertisements. Although on a public bus recently, the ads were missing just above the windows and all this did was reveal a lot of crappy looking tags and graffiti. Awful to look at, either way.

@Anna: Thank you for your thoughtful answer. I didn’t want you to change the post and I take your point about people’s right to self-identify. I should have said “reconsider your use of…”.

We had the NRA convention and these May 21 fools in town over the same weekend. It was a real meeting of the no-minds.

I agree that saying God hates a group is hate speech. It is a statement that calls for action. Religious people believe they should emulate God, therefore, they should also hate gays. To my mind, the end of the world business is less clear, but at bottom it is also a call to action, i.e., repent and give up your sinning/gay ways or else.

@Becky: I’m a little busy today, but I will resume working to bring about the end of the world tomorrow.

I don’t think it’s a good idea to pull an ad that has nothing to do with hate speech–and I don’t think an ad claiming that the judgment day will soon be upon us is hate speech. Their website includes hatespeech, but that doesn’t mean the ad does. And I don’t think that if they pay for an MBTA ad, it’s providing a forum for hate speech, because their forum already exists–they’re just spending their money on ads.

Of course, it’s possible that my feelings about this particular issue are coloring my judgment. Because here’s the thing: people who believe that May 21 is the End Of Days Because Of Gays? They’re extremely unlikely to hop on the pro-gay bus any time soon. So trying to negotiate with The Crazy is a waste of time. The people I’m interested in negotiating with are the people who are like, “OhI have gay friends and I’m cool with gays, I guess, it’s just that gay marriage is against my church.” Which is to say, the people who can be reasoned with, the people who have not really used reasoning or logic or thought when it comes to things like gay rights.

Those people do not believe that May 21 is the End of Days. Those people think that people who believe that May 21 is the End of Days are crazy.
I believe that the fact that Crazy End of Days people hate The Gays, makes the hating-the-gays position seem more crazy than it is.
I mean, lots of people think that apocalyptic religiosity is crazy talk, but don’t necessarily think that anti-gay religiosity is crazy talk. I want to point out that apocalypse crazy-talk and anti-gay crazy-talk go hand in hand, thus exposing the absurdity of anti-gay religiosity.

It’s kind of like the inverse of the argument against the ads, I suppose. Instead of getting rid of them because they are run by a group founded on bigotry, let them run the ad because the ad is so dumb, and the group is so invested in bigotry, that it makes the bigotry look especially crazy in light of its association with the dumb, crazy ad.

@Cimorene: Even crazy-seeming bigotry is still bigotry, and thus deserves the same response that sane-sounding bigotry gets. I take your point about the craziness of the messenger weakening the message, but the message is still hateful and wrong and should be rejected.

See, I would have it removed, especially if ads are SAYING that the reason for this “apocalypse” is because of all the awesome gay sex. I also acknowledge that I have a VASTLY different perspective because we have laws against hate speech and a Human Rights Commission that would be on this like white on rice.

I’m getting an impression, correct me if I’m wrong of cource, that the US has a weird idea that if you don’t let this shit fly, then you’re stripping away all rights to everything and omg what’s next don’t take my guuuuuuuns…. Considering that our Charter allows freedom of speech (within the law) and we haven’t gone totalitarian on each other, it’s simply not the case and wouldn’t hurt to re-examine the issue of protecting hate speech.

@MA – Definitely true, and this is the case for the following reason: the ads themselves, as discussed above, are not really hate speech. They don’t single out any group except perhaps the nebulous group of nonbelievers, and in truth many of these ads are pretty absurd (some have the words “God guarantees it!” in one of those Office 1998 starburst shapes). There are many people in this country who think that, for example, Planned Parenthood or PFLAG are hate organizations. The argument goes that if we restrict an ad that has in and of itself no hateful content because the organization that put it up engages in what many people believe to be hate speech although it has not come before the court, then we would have no grounds to allow PP or PFLAG to advertise on public buses regardless of the content of their ads. This is an argument that I personally buy into — in my opinion, as soon as the *ad itself* says anything hateful, by all means pull or or don’t allow it in the first place, but until that point, or the point at which the organization is classified by our legal system as a hate group, I don’t think there should be a legal framework to prevent them from buying adspace on publicly-owned apparatus.

The US has a weird idea that if you don’t let this shit fly, then you’re stripping away all rights to everything and omg what’s next don’t take my guuuuuuuns….

If by “the US” you mean, “watchers of Fox News” then, yes, that’s about the size of it. But the left-wing is just as—if not more—passionate about the First Amendment, probably so we can keep shouting down the Fox News watchers.

Interestingly, in the recent SCOTUS decision Snyder v. Phelps—in which a man asked that Westboro Baptist be prevented from picketing funerals with their “God Hates Fags” signs—it was the liberal justices who voted as a block that such speech was protected under the First Amendment. The lone dissenting justice was Alito, who’s a hard right-winger. While everyone agreed that Phelps is loathsome and hateful, it was one of the very few SCOTUS cases in recent memory where there was so much consensus between the right and left block of the court. I think most Americans—right and left— have no interest in overturning the First Amendment or changing our current free-speech laws…even if only because we all assume that if we did, the other side would use it against us.

I don’t know that there would be any net benefit to it anyway. I have yet to see any evidence that countries that criminalize hate speech are less racist, less hateful, or less prone to divisiveness. God knows, European countries like France, Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands all have laws against hate speech and yet are experiencing an unprecedented wave of hard-right, racist, Islamophobic, anti-immigrant sentiment, both from politicians and common citizens. Banning hate speech doesn’t seem to do a damn thing to reduce hate or prevent the election of wacko haters over there, so I doubt it would make any difference here, either.

I dunno, in our case it certainly makes it harder for it to be so out there. Of course there are still racists and bigot, that kind of legislation doesn’t make it magically disappear. However, I personally find that it has been effective in terms of drawing the line.

I’m not gonna lie though, when that Supreme Court decision went down, I was damn happy to be living in a place where Phelps would be arrested for that shit. There’s free speech and then there’s that.